No, really? Because Up's was just balloons. But then, maybe you're one of those latexphiles. In which case, I stand down.

The trailer I saw was about a curmudgeony old man and a little boy scout. And the old man decides to tie thousands of balloons to his house and fly away. And the little boy scout gets stuck on his porch while they're flying.

I knew it was going to be quirky but fun, and I was right.

I think Nathan Fillion said it best when he said if your date doesn't cry in the first five minutes of Up just break up with them.

Well, I guess my argument is dismantled, since you made me have flashbacks to Wild, Wild West and every Adam Sandler movie made in the last decade. Just seeing Adam Sandler is enough--I don't need to see him in drag to know he's made yet another horrific piece of cinema.

stainedglassdoll:9beers: The animation looks great but I'm not sold on the story.

I don't think Pixar's ever made a trailer that really gave away all the major driving plot points of the story...I think they like to have people come in and be (hopefully pleasantly) surprised to some degree.

I agree. They're very good at giving you a little bit, but without giving too much away at all. I've never really gone into a Pixar movie knowing what the plot of the movie is. To me, Cars is the biggest example of it. It's not my favorite Pixar flick, but its trailer definitely left me thinking, "NASCAR movie? Really?" When I finally saw it, I was pleasantly surprised to find a cute story and much more to the movie than just NASCAR-esque crap (Doc Hollywood yadda yadda).

Meanwhile, any trailer for a Dreamworks film pretty much lays it all out for you in a 30 spot. I knew from the first commercial that most of the jokes and plot of Kung Fu Panda were going to be "fat panda learns to do karate against the odds and saves the day."

And if Pixar has to make things like Cars and Cars 2 so they can make something more adventurous like Wall-E and Up, I'm for it.

FeedTheCollapse: Lando Lincoln: This is closer to the level of a Dreamworks picture.

Though I'm willing to bet the movie is probably better than what was shown, it did kind of look Dreamworks-esque.

WayToBlue: The opening of "Up" was great, the rest was slightly above "meh."

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. The first 10 minutes or so of Up is great... but the rest is just pretty good. You'll notice how no one ever talks about anything but the first 10 minutes of the film.

Six_By_Nine:Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: New Hotness: I have seen 2 minutes of a film and can now pass judgement.

minorshan:

You and I are on the same page. Yep, it's about rebellion and boys, but on the other hand, when you're dealing with a period piece, you don't exactly have a lot of wiggle-room before you stretch suspension of disbelief too far (where does her ...

Same page, sort of. I actually think it's not about rebellion and boys. Fighting for your rights/self isn't rebellion, but that aside, I don't think that's what this movie is about anyway. I could be wrong, but from what I've read, it's taking that trope and turning it on it's head. We'll see, but I have high hopes.

Regarding whoever said the plot looks tired - like I said, from what I've read (granted years ago, and fairly vague) the direction they were planning was not. Every plot is tired if you over examine things. That's why TV Tropes is a dangerous website. I enjoy pulling the curtain back as much as anyone else, but the next step is letting yourself enjoy the magic show for the skill it takes to pull off a trick, even when you know how said trick is done.

minorshan:Six_By_Nine: Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: New Hotness: I have seen 2 minutes of a film and can now pass judgement.

minorshan:

You and I are on the same page. Yep, it's about rebellion and boys, but on the other hand, when you're dealing with a period piece, you don't exactly have a lot of wiggle-room before you stretch suspension of disbelief too far (where does her ...

Same page, sort of. I actually think it's not about rebellion and boys. Fighting for your rights/self isn't rebellion, but that aside, I don't think that's what this movie is about anyway. I could be wrong, but from what I've read, it's taking that trope and turning it on it's head. We'll see, but I have high hopes.

Regarding whoever said the plot looks tired - like I said, from what I've read (granted years ago, and fairly vague) the direction they were planning was not. Every plot is tired if you over examine things. That's why TV Tropes is a dangerous website. I enjoy pulling the curtain back as much as anyone else, but the next step is letting yourself enjoy the magic show for the skill it takes to pull off a trick, even when you know how said trick is done.

The movie is about Mothers and Daughters. The mom gets turned into a bear and she has to save her.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher:MadCat221: Lando Lincoln: Eh...okay. I guess. Not sure why some people are so excited about this one. Are they all drunk Irish?

Old and busted: Hating something because it's popular.

New hotness: Being apathetic to something because it's popular.

Fark has done the "being apathetic to something because it's popular" to death.

New Hotness: I have seen 2 minutes of a film and can now pass judgement.

Hell, that's been done to death on here too. I can't remember which movie it was, but a couple of years ago there were Farkers who reviewed a movie based solely on its poster. Sadly, they were entirely serious about it.

My favorite was when a bunch of them condemned the new Batman movie from a photoshop of Anne Hathaway. That still makes me smile.

FiendishFellow05:Critch: John Lasseter stated in an interview about Toy Story 2, "We decided we wouldn't do a sequel, unless we thought we had a really good story to tell". So far, at least in this movie watchers opinion, they've stuck to their guns(yes, I thought Toy Story 3 was good. Just please, no more).

I'm pretty sure the sequal was partly to get out of the fairly costly disney contract with the minimum of Disney owned characters/stories. Pixar's deal with Disney terminated before Cars was released and Disney wouldn't have owned the characters. (Disney ended up merging with them to keep something)

WayToBlue:Have they even attempted to explain why that particular category gets so many? Other than the obvious "if we nominate a movie it makes more money, and we love money!" I mean. It can't be the quality, because tons of them are one step (or no steps) above mediocre.

Isn't it obvious? The whole thing is nothing more than the whole motion picture industry patting itself on the back anyway. Too many industry bigwigs get snubbed too often is bad for business. Not to mention the prevalent political party's "everybody gets a trophy" mentality.

Skyrmion:I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. That said, I'm forced to agree with the "It looks like How to Train Your Dragon without the dragons" comment.

I've never seen How to Train Your Dragon, but I'm gleaning from the thread that there is a red-headed bold female character. People generally don't complain about 90% of films: "Oh look, another movie with a blonde female/average american joe protagonist/quirky brunette set in a city/small town/etc. This movie B must be a ripoff of movie A." But two relatively closely released films with a similar setting and similar minority protagonist tends to draw this kind of critique. Not saying it isn't warranted, but it's interesting to me.

This movie has Disney all over it, it even looks like Tangled. Their culture is bearing down hard on Pixar now. I have to say Pixar's days are over as a powerhouse. The original staff that fought to not be Disney eventually sold out to dump trucks full of money plus they are much older and not spending 20 hours a day shooting for perfection. This is where Disney found its in and chance to 'fix' the animation and story. Pixar is now just a Disney animation studio with a name that people go for.

My prediction: the Queen is a step-mother. How else are they going to justify the arrogance/ rebellion interplay we just witnessed? So, why would the Queen step-mother want to marry off the daughter to a loser on the simple stake of an arrow shot? Money: the real language of Hollywood, because it's the real language of America. Until the daughter gets married off, she's the heir apparent of a son-less king, no? So, the queen intends to off the drunken king and usurp the throne, and his daughter knows it. You can see there is no love lost between the two in the final glare they share.

Flaunting convention against her father's wishes to escape the locked-away girl life? Check

Mother is alive? Wha?

I guess that's what makes it a Pixar movie.

A typical Disney Princess has a "Prince" to save her and at least 3 songs to sing. If neither of those things happens -and we have no reason to suspect they will from the two trailers made so far- then that's what will set it apart.

Lando Lincoln:Eh...okay. I guess. Not sure why some people are so excited about this one. Are they all drunk Irish?

Character design seems good, the personality of the protagonist seems engaging, and it appears from what little we've seen so far to be a unique take on a fantasy quest story. That's why I'm interested to see it. What exactly, other than the ethnicity of the cast, do you find off-putting?

chewielouie:FeedTheCollapse: Lando Lincoln: This is closer to the level of a Dreamworks picture.

Though I'm willing to bet the movie is probably better than what was shown, it did kind of look Dreamworks-esque.

WayToBlue: The opening of "Up" was great, the rest was slightly above "meh."

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. The first 10 minutes or so of Up is great... but the rest is just pretty good. You'll notice how no one ever talks about anything but the first 10 minutes of the film.

Dug appears in the first 10 minutes of the film?

fair enough, although I would counter-argue that 99% of any discussion related to Up is for the first 10 minutes.

there's a rather shocking amount of Dreamworks love in this thread. How to Train Your Dragon was good, but it is one movie and it certainly wasn't better than Toy Story 3, nor does it excuse the rest of Dreamworks rather awful movies.

Critch:So, How to train your dragon, without dragons? Sorry, Pixar hasn't made the best CGI movie in several years, and in 2011 made the worst one. They've now gone down the road of copying other studios, and sequels. And the only sequel people want, Incredibles 2, they won't do without Brad Bird, who is now making live action.

HtTYD: Main cast of 3 boys and 2 girls, learning to work as a team under the leadership of the ProtagonistBrave: Main cast of 1 Celtic girl intent on succeeded on her own

HtTYD: Male protagonist with distant father, no mother, and a gruff, disapproving, maimed, ex-military male mentor who just wants to fit inBrave: A Female protagonist with a doting father, traditional mother, and (so far) no mentor at all who has no intention of fitting in if it means sacrificing who she is

HtTYD: A story of a young, ostracized boy learning how to use his unique talents to become accepted in conventional society, that violence is a worse approach than understanding, and that even the most monstrous individuals can have valid reasons for their actions.Brave: A story of a young girl rebelling against social convention to live by her own lights who goes on some manner of quest.

stainedglassdoll:Skyrmion: I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. That said, I'm forced to agree with the "It looks like How to Train Your Dragon without the dragons" comment.

I've never seen How to Train Your Dragon, but I'm gleaning from the thread that there is a red-headed bold female character.

There isn't, although it is a coming-of-age movie with a young protagonist. Other than that, the comparison has more to do with apparent similarities in setting (replace pre-modern Scandinavia with pre-modern Scotland), art style, and style of humor.

MadCat221: Lando Lincoln: Eh...okay. I guess. Not sure why some people are so excited about this one. Are they all drunk Irish?

Old and busted: Hating something because it's popular.

New hotness: Being apathetic to something because it's popular.

I'm trying to understand why this film is being so anticipated. From the first scene, I'm not seeing it. The opening of "Up" was fantastic. This...not so much. This is closer to the level of a Dreamworks picture.

Yes, I know that seemed overly harsh.

The opening of "Up" was great, the rest was slightly above "meh." I'd say that it absolutely didn't deserve an Oscar best picture nomination, but then most of them don't since moving to the 9, 10, 12, whatever the hell ridiculous number of nominees we get for that category are now.

Have they even attempted to explain why that particular category gets so many? Other than the obvious "if we nominate a movie it makes more money, and we love money!" I mean. It can't be the quality, because tons of them are one step (or no steps) above mediocre.

They want to shove all animated works into one category so they can give fewer awards to animated works because Hollywood considers them essentially "Non-serious". So, the same reason no one in Washington seems to listen to Paul Krugman or James Galbraith.

FeedTheCollapse:there's a rather shocking amount of Dreamworks love in this thread. How to Train Your Dragon was good, but it is one movie and it certainly wasn't better than Toy Story 3, nor does it excuse the rest of Dreamworks rather awful movies.

I loved Kung-Fu Panda. Not a deep film, but I thought it was just about perfect for the type of movie it was trying to be.

stainedglassdoll:Skyrmion: I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. That said, I'm forced to agree with the "It looks like How to Train Your Dragon without the dragons" comment.

I've never seen How to Train Your Dragon, but I'm gleaning from the thread that there is a red-headed bold female character. People generally don't complain about 90% of films: "Oh look, another movie with a blonde female/average american joe protagonist/quirky brunette set in a city/small town/etc. This movie B must be a ripoff of movie A." But two relatively closely released films with a similar setting and similar minority protagonist tends to draw this kind of critique. Not saying it isn't warranted, but it's interesting to me.

//would like to see more asian protagonists in non kung-fu movies :|

How To Train Your Dragon has a similar setting (medieval Europe), but a different protagonist (scrawny Viking boy). However, I suppose the comparisons are meant to be aimed toward "average children's movie with sappy ending and Middle Ages attire".

Personally, I'll be interested in seeing "Brave", although I'll probably have to see it in Spanish first due to the nature of Guatemalan theaters.

Skyrmion:stainedglassdoll: Skyrmion: I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. That said, I'm forced to agree with the "It looks like How to Train Your Dragon without the dragons" comment.

I've never seen How to Train Your Dragon, but I'm gleaning from the thread that there is a red-headed bold female character.

There isn't, although it is a coming-of-age movie with a young protagonist. Other than that, the comparison has more to do with apparent similarities in setting (replace pre-modern Scandinavia with pre-modern Scotland), art style, and style of humor.

I don't think Robin was going to marry the winner, and besides, the whole "secret archery contestant showing up at the last moment to win the contest" is at least as old as the Odyssey and, unless you believe humans never told stories until the invention of writing, probably far, far older.

HAMMERTOE:My prediction: the Queen is a step-mother. How else are they going to justify the arrogance/ rebellion interplay we just witnessed? So, why would the Queen step-mother want to marry off the daughter to a loser on the simple stake of an arrow shot? Money: the real language of Hollywood, because it's the real language of America. Until the daughter gets married off, she's the heir apparent of a son-less king, no? So, the queen intends to off the drunken king and usurp the throne, and his daughter knows it. You can see there is no love lost between the two in the final glare they share.

HAMMERTOE:My prediction: the Queen is a step-mother. How else are they going to justify the arrogance/ rebellion interplay we just witnessed? So, why would the Queen step-mother want to marry off the daughter to a loser on the simple stake of an arrow shot? Money: the real language of Hollywood, because it's the real language of America. Until the daughter gets married off, she's the heir apparent of a son-less king, no? So, the queen intends to off the drunken king and usurp the throne, and his daughter knows it. You can see there is no love lost between the two in the final glare they share.

Bank on it.

Uh, no, but thanks for playing!

"Merida is a skilled archer and impetuous daughter of King Fergus (Billy Connolly) and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson)."

Skyrmion:stainedglassdoll: Skyrmion: I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. That said, I'm forced to agree with the "It looks like How to Train Your Dragon without the dragons" comment.

I've never seen How to Train Your Dragon, but I'm gleaning from the thread that there is a red-headed bold female character.

There isn't, although it is a coming-of-age movie with a young protagonist. Other than that, the comparison has more to do with apparent similarities in setting (replace pre-modern Scandinavia with pre-modern Scotland), art style, and style of humor.

This, and the fact that for some inexplicable reason the makers of HtTYD decided to give some of the Vikings Scottish accents.

The movie is going to be really bad. Its cliched presentation reminded me of Tangled which was universally hated. Plus it is Pixar, a studio known for releasing garbage. I'm feeling pretty good about my judgment here. I've got lots of information to form a solid opinion.

/Will make the decision to see the movie based on reviews of the actual movie